No biomass power incinerators!

PLEASE HELP STOP THE SOU BIOMASS PROJECT
You can help stop the SOU Biomass Project to the protect the image, livability, health and air quality of Ashland’s residents and the sustainably of its tourist reliant economy by:

OTHER CONTINUING ACTION STRATEGIES

Ask Our Elected Officials to Stop the siting of biomass plants in polluted areas!

You can help stop the siting of the biomass plant in Klamath Falls and other already polluted cities in Oregon by writing to your Senator or Congress person and asking them to not allocate subsidies for woody biomass under the American Reinvestment Act for renewable energy. These plants require up to 30% government subsidies to be build and up to 20% tax credits to operate to breakeven. Klamath Bioenergy has said it cannot be built without substantial government subsidies. Your can help by submitting and signing the form letter below

Save Our Rural Oregon and the citizens of Klamath Falls, OR. request that you take a close look at allocating subsidies to wasteful biomass industries in the CLEAN ENERGY BILL.

—————————————————————————————————————–

SORO feels that new rules should be incorporated in the renewable energy legislation–American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) for applicants for obtaining biomass subsidies for large stand alone biomass facilities, not in conjunction with sawmills such as:

a. Require them to be located away from people at safe distances to prevent health problems from their toxic emissions (other nations have stringent location rules to protect citizens health)

b. Require that they be located out of polluted areas such as Klamath Falls that are in violation of the clean air act and out of compliance with EPA attainment standards.

a. Minimal long run contribution to US power production. SORO contends that because of limitedfeedstock supplies and low energy conversion ratios that biomass will not ever provide more than

10% of total US power requirements. Currently in the US, the biomass industry only produces 2600 MW ofpower. While the proposed pump storage hydro plant in Klamath County will produce 1380 MW of powerby 2017 or 60% as much as all US biomass production.

b. Extremely low percent efficiency for power production (less than 30% conversion ratio)The KBE facility will produce 2.0 MW of power per man while the Klamath Pump Storage Hydro plant will produce 30 MW of power per man

c. Health risks are extreme if plants are located near people because of excessive toxic emissions.American Lung and Heart associations have signed off against biomass because of health risks 77,000 doctors nation wide have signed off against biomass because of health risks

d. Low percent utilization of biomass power because it is too costly

E.g.: The largest U.S. biomass plant, a 100-megawatt facility that recently opened in east Texas,sits idle most days, unable to compete with cheaper natural gas-fired power plants.

e. Cannot be built or operate without subsidies. Biomass has a history of producing costly power—and without subsidies, would not exist, nor be able to operate. (30% non repayable subsidy to build and 20% tax credit to operate)

f. Contribution to economic recovery via job creation. Because of its inefficient operation it produces more jobs than many other forms of renewable energy—but wages/ are lower and the cost is high to taxpayers via subsidies

g. Amount of pollution. Biomass is the dirtiest energy producer—is 50% dirtier than coal on the average and is not properly regulated in Oregon and elsewhere (see attachments

h. Carbon neutrality and contribution to green house gases inventory and climate change. Is currently exempt from green house gas accounting via a moratorium which will expire thisyear. (Current law suit against the EPA may cause expiration even earlier)

Finally, precedent cases from other countries should be used in curtailing biomass subsidies:

As a responsible citizen, I support Save Our Rural Oregon’s (SORO) petition to ask Congress to curtail the wasteful allocation of subsidies to biomass so called renewable energy companies by excluding woody biomass companies from the eligibility list for the American Reinvestment Act. I believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government for the operation of the U.S. government. Congress should start doing their job to eliminate the “government pork barrel” starting with eliminating subsidies to the unprofitable biomass industry. I feel now is the time to act – because although the current sequester appears to have currently dried up biomass subsidies, but they may get reestablished in May due to political and biomass industry pressures.

I feel that taking away these substantial subsidies these biomass companies get to build, to truck in feedstock and tax credits to operate will drive the inefficient and improperly located biomass companies out of business leaving only the efficient companies with up to date pollution controls located in the woods close to their feedstock sources. This would drive out companies like the one proposed in my home town– located in the most polluted city in the state and which the applicant said they cannot even build without massive government subsidies(They expect to get $40million to build). It should be pointed out that the U.S. is only one of a few countries that still award biomass subsidies. Even Canada is phasing out biomass subsidies in 2017.

———————————————————————————————————-

Signatures of SORO supporters supporting petition:

NAME (print & sign) ADDRESS PHONE NO

———————————————————————————————————

———————————————————————————————————

NOTE: FOR AN IN DEPTH JUSTIFICATION FOR CURTAINING BIOMASS SUBSIDIES SEE THE ANALYSIS AT THE END OF THIS SECTION

This letter asks concerned citizens across Oregon to support Klamath County residents and Save Our Rural Oregon to plead with Oregon’s congressional delegation and the “Energy Committee of which Senator Wyden is the chairman not to allocate subsidies to woody biomass when the Fiscal Sequester ends in May.

Because of the US economic crisis, it is extremely important for congress to allocate subsidies to critical programs such as Medicare, etc. and stop giving subsidies to wasteful programs such as “so called” renewable energy especially the biomass incineration industries

Experts have told SORO during our 3 years of research on biomass that this form of energy production is an unproven experiment using old technology and will not significantly benefit our nations energy needs, adding only a few percent to the total. These projects are:

–Inefficient and unprofitable without subsidies (the energy conversion ratio is less than 25%)

-Producers of negative energy when the significant use of fossil fuel used by these projects is added in to the total mix

–Not carbon neutral(they are EPA exempt) and add greatly to green house gases and discharge vast amount of toxics in already air polluted–poor communities.

–The dirtiest of all energy producers—emit 50% more PM2.5 than coal plants

–A drastic negative impact on forest health.

What is most threatening to citizens about the biomass industry is that developers target poor communities that can’t fight back—locating many projects in communities that already have poor air quality and have unhealthy vulnerable elderly populations. For example (2) projects are proposed in Klamath Falls which has the worst air quality in the state and at times in the nation.

Therefore, if you are concerned about the environment and protecting humans, our forests and our fish and wildlife , please go to SORO’s website: https://stopklamathbiomass.wordpress.com and click on the “take action” icon to get congressional contact information and stop subsidies to the biomass welfare program.

Paul Fouch President of Save Our Rural Oregon

DETAILED JUSTIFICATION TO CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS

TO END BIOMASS SUBSIDIES

Plea to congress to end biomass subsidies

The citizens petitions in this letter support Save Our Rural Oregon’s (SORO) petition to ask Congress to curtail the wasteful allocation of subsidies to biomass so called renewable energy companies by excluding woody biomass companies from the eligibility list for the American Reinvestment Act.

As President of Save Our Rural Oregon, I believe in fiscal responsibility and limited government for the operation of the U.S. government. Congress should start doing their job to eliminate the “government pork barrel” starting with eliminating subsidies to the unprofitable biomass industry. I feel now is the time to act – because although the current sequester appears to have currently dried up biomass subsidies, they may get reestablished in May due to political and biomass industry pressures.

I feel that taking away the substantial subsidies these biomass companies get to build, to truck in feedstock and tax credits to operate will drive the inefficient and improperly located biomass companies out of business leaving only the efficient companies with up to date pollution controls located in the woods close to their feedstock sources. This would drive out companies like the one proposed in my home town– located in the most polluted city in the state and which the applicant said they cannot even build without massive government subsidies(They expect to get $40million to build). It should be pointed out that the U.S. is only one of a few countries that still award biomass subsidies. Even Canada is phasing out biomass subsidies in 2017.

Members of the house especially Tea Party members have the authority and the responsibility to stop wasteful spending. The Tea Party motto is promote limited government and fiscal responsibility. Further in the constitution it states that the house controls the purse strings:

According to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, money can only be paid out of the Treasury by appropriations. “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Not a cent can be spend without the House’s authorization. The Republicans say Obama Care is harmful: Why don’t they defund it? They say education should be handled locally: Why don’t they delete the Department of Education? They say without spending cuts we are going the way of Greece and they are right. Why don’t they cut spending?

Further the people’s branch –in our case, the House—has held the purse strings since Parliament stripped the crown of power in the 17th century. The money cannot move unless the House Appropriates.

Background and justification for ending biomass subsidies:

Experts have told SORO during our 3 years of research on biomass that this form of energy production is an unproven experiment using old technology and will not significantly benefit our nation’s energy needs adding only a few percent to the total. These projects are:

–Inefficient and unprofitable without subsidies (the energy conversion ratio is less than 25%)

-Producers of negative energy when the significant use of fossil fuel used by these projects is added in to the total mix

–Not carbon neutral(they are EPA exempt) and add greatly to green house gases and discharge vast amount of toxics in already air polluted and poor communities.

-The dirtiest of all energy produces—emit 50% more PM2.5 than coal plants

–A drastic negative impact on forest health

What is most threatening to citizens about the biomass industry is that developers target poor communities that can’t fight back—locating many projects in communities that already have poor air quality and have unhealthy vulnerable elderly populations. For example (2) projects are proposed in Klamath Falls which has the worst air quality in the state and at times in the nation.

It is a noble cause to try to boost the economy and eliminate our energy dependence on fossil fuels by trying to utilize our existing basic resources. However, SORO feels that public welfare programs such as biomass subsidies are strategies going in the wrong direction and will cause further financial problems to the country. The very nature of our limited resources of timber, water, air, fish and wildlife, etc will pose insurmountable limitations for the use of this strategy to significantly increase our power output and create sustainable employment opportunities. First there is a limited supply of feedstock in the forests. Experts have told SORO that there has been a shortage of feed stock for press board plants for over 20 years and many plants did not start here because of the shortage. In many cases biomass plants are located in already heavily polluted cities and will greatly worsen their air quality. In fact a recent Wall St. Journal article study revealed that 80% of biomass plants are continually in violation of EPA or state air and water standards. Forest health experts say that unnecessary disturbing of forests to gather biomass is bad for forest health because they strip it of the required nutrients to foster new forest growth and harm the fish and wildlife. Most important is that biomass will not add a significant increase to our power supply because these plants are at best only 25% efficient when compared to hydro plants such as pump storage which are over 80% efficient and yet require no government subsidies to operate. And when the fossil fuel required to truck chips in and ash out of these plants is placed into the equation the total power contribution may be a negative energy contribution.

In reality this type of energy production should only be used as a by product at existing sawmills to reduce the operating cost. (even the Oregon Logging Association is against stand alone biomass and only favors them in conjunction with sawmills to use sawmill residuals and waste. The conclusion is that there is no way many of these stand alone projects can compete with more efficient power production facilities and will always require massive government subsidies to operate and breakeven. The result is that many of these biomass plants sit idle unable to compete with more efficient forms of power generation.

SORO and the majority of people I know feel that the real answer to boosting the economy and getting more jobs and fostering energy independence is to stop exporting our natural resources overseas—shipping our logs, natural gas and coal to China. We should utilize these resources at home to create a better economy. In my home town there used to be 7 sawmills( one was the largest pine mill in the world) and now there are no sawmills at all. And what’s even worse at least in the private forests is that they clear cut the forests and send the large logs overseas, and leave the small and medium logs to be burned in biomass incinerators—I have pictures with logs up to 2 feet in diameter in biomass cold decks

There should be laws passed to not allow processing of logs outside of our state. This would create many new logging and sawmill jobs and create residuals for biomass that could be used to generate steam and power to lower sawmill operating costs.

In addition, many of these rural communities in Oregon have a great potential for high tech clean industries with an outstanding rural atmosphere, and recreational opportunities for these company’s employees. These communities already have the work force skills to support these high tech companies. For example OIT has one of the top engineering programs in the country and Klamath Community College has an outstanding trade program for welding, machining electronic technicians, etc. My wife and I have raised 8 children: (3) engineers, (2) MBAs, a boiler make-welder, a carpenter, and a journalist—all of whom have had to leave Klamath Falls because of lack of suitable job opportunities.

Share this:

Like this:

One Response

It is stupid and irresponsible to allow a biomass plant to foul the already dirtiest air in the state. The Oregon State University’s 4 year stuf say ” . . . managing the forests for biofuel production will increase carbon dioxide emissions from the forests by at least 14 percent.” That 14% is heading right toward Klamath Falls. Our representatives need to set greed aside and think of the residents and the environment.